Gertrude Levac

The appellant appealed an engineer's report under section 48 of the Drainage Act which determined that the proposed Allan-Connell Municipal Drain could not be constructed.

The engineer filed a section 40 report after a petitioner withdrew her name, rendering the petition for drainage invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's report, finding that the area requiring drainage was correctly identified and that it was impractical to proceed with the drainage works due to the invalid petition.

The appeal was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's reports concerning the Upper and Lower W.J. Douglas Municipal Drains, raising concerns about assessments, culvert sizes, and the sufficiency of the Little Rideau Creek as an outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the assessment variation but ordered amendments to the engineer's report.

The Tribunal directed that the drainage works be extended downstream to the Ottawa River to remove obstructions and alleviate flooding risks, and imposed restrictions on the size of future culverts to control water flow.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision assessing a penalty for failing to meet Grade A standards under Regulation 761 of the Milk Act.

A fieldperson found the farm's milking equipment was not in good repair and the milkhouse was not neat and clean.

The appellant argued the farm was clean and the penalty was unjustified.

The Tribunal found sufficient evidence that the milking equipment was not thoroughly cleaned, showed signs of 'inking', and the milkhouse was untidy.

The appeal was denied and the penalty upheld.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Smith Municipal Drain.

The appellants objected to the proposed location of the drain and the associated assessments.

The Tribunal found that the original engineer's report, which located the drain on the Béliveau and Lalonde properties, was the most economical and least disruptive option, rejecting a revised report that moved the drain to the Cusson property.

The Tribunal ordered the adoption of the original report with modifications, including the provision of a berm, a fence allowance for Cusson, and special benefit assessments to cover the extra engineering costs and the fence.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance upholding six somatic cell count (SCC) test results in the penalty range, which ultimately led to their farm being shut off from shipping milk.

The appellants argued that the official test results were inaccurate and inconsistent with independent tests.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the high SCC scores were caused by a high incidence of Staph. aureus mastitis in the herd, combined with less than adequate management by the producers.

The Tribunal found no evidence of anomalies in the standard procedures used for sampling and testing the milk.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision and an Engineer's Report regarding the construction of a requisition drain intended to provide an outlet for a new subdivision.

The appellant argued the drain would increase water flow onto his property without providing any benefit, and that the estimated costs were too low.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to an allowance for injuring liability due to the increased rate of water flow.

The Tribunal also determined that the benefit to the appellant's land was over-stated and adjusted the assessment, ordering the subdivision developer to pay the costs assessed to the subdivision lands.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's cost estimate and confirmed the project qualified as a requisition drain under the Drainage Act.

L'appelant a contesté le rapport de l'ingénieur concernant la construction d'un drain municipal destiné à desservir une nouvelle subdivision.

Le Tribunal a conclu que le drain proposé répondait à la définition de travaux exécutés sur demande, mais a modifié le rapport pour accorder à l'appelant une indemnité pour les dommages causés par l'augmentation de la vitesse d'écoulement de l'eau sur sa propriété.

Le Tribunal a également révisé la répartition des coûts, attribuant la majorité des avantages statutaires et des coûts à la subdivision plutôt qu'à l'appelant.

The appellant, Laplante Combining Inc., appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying its claim for unseeded land compensation (Unseeded Acreage Benefit) in the 2000 crop year.

The appellant argued it had coverage for 2,500 acres, while AGRICORP maintained coverage was limited to 750 acres because the appellant failed to report its increased acreage by the May 1 deadline.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not give effective notice of the increased land base before the deadline and that AGRICORP acted within the terms of the Contract of Insurance in denying the claim.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants, Alexander and Mary Cumming, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for an Ontario milk producer licence without transferring their Quebec quota to Ontario.

The appellants argued that the DFO policy requiring the transfer of Quebec quota was discriminatory and invalid.

The Tribunal found that the DFO had the authority to maintain the policy and that there were no special circumstances warranting an exemption for the appellants.

The appeal was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the assessments and the engineer's report regarding the Bourdeau Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that the municipality should bear the costs of drain modifications and repairs, and disputed their individual assessments based on the extent to which their properties contributed to or benefited from the drain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to modify the drainage works but ordered adjustments to the assessment schedule, including a minimum assessment per property and specific reductions for certain landowners, noting that the engineer failed to differentiate run-off rates between residential and undeveloped lands.

The appellants, Ontario-based dairy farmers who previously shipped milk to the Quebec market, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for compensation for losses incurred when transferring their quota to the Ontario market.

The appellants argued that the DFO's policy requiring them to transfer all their Quebec quota to Ontario, rather than selling it at a higher price in Quebec and buying cheaper Ontario quota, was unfairly administered.

The Tribunal found that the appellants transferred their quota for their own business reasons and that there was no evidence of special circumstances warranting an exemption to the DFO's policy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, five farmers, appealed a decision by the respondent crop insurance agency regarding the adjustment of their 1999 hay crop under the Forage Plan.

The appellants argued that the computer-simulated yield model used by the agency did not accurately reflect the severe drought conditions they experienced, specifically contesting the initial soil moisture data used.

The Tribunal found that the agency had applied the area-based plan and its simulation model consistently and correctly according to the plan's requirements.

As the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to alter the plan or its methodology, the appeal was denied.

The Township of Zorra applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal to modify a bylaw regarding the Cartmale Drain.

During construction, a Bell Canada fibre optic cable was discovered, requiring the drain to be relocated.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments to the bylaw, including assessing the increased costs of the relocation to Bell Canada.

Several landowners and municipalities appealed the engineer's report and Court of Revision decisions regarding the Séguin/East Boundary Municipal Drain.

The appellants challenged the assessments, the allowances for land taken and damages, and the proposed alignment of the drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the specific appeals but ordered modifications to the engineer's report, including relocating a portion of the drain, adjusting land allowances, and directing that the cost of the road crossing be charged to the road authority pursuant to section 26 of the Drainage Act.

The City of Port Colborne applied to the Tribunal requesting a modification to a municipal by-law concerning the relocation of a portion of the Wignell W2 Municipal Drain.

The proposed work, undertaken entirely at the cost of a local quarry, would relocate the drain to fit into the final quarry configuration and rehabilitation plan.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments to the by-law on terms, directing the engineer to amend the report and the city clerk to replace the relevant drawings and notify affected persons.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the engineer's report for improvements to the W.J. Douglas Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed improvements on the appellants' lands were unnecessary and that only maintenance of the existing drain was required.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, reduced the appellants' assessments for the improvements to zero, and referred the report back to the engineer to separate the costs of maintenance from the costs of improvements and to recalculate the assessments.

The appellants, operators of a dairy farm, appealed decisions of the Director of Regulatory Compliance of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario not to cancel freezing point test results and resulting penalties from February, March, and April 1998.

The appellants did not dispute the test results but sought relief on humanitarian grounds, arguing the violations were related to the January 1998 ice storm.

The Tribunal found no cause-effect link between the ice storm and the freezing point violations, concluding instead that the issues stemmed from farm management practices that were only corrected after milk pick-up was shut off.

The appeal was denied and the penalties were allowed to stand.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for a municipal drain, arguing that the drain should not cross his property and that his assessment was too high.

The Tribunal found that there was no practical alternative to routing the drain through the appellant's property.

The Tribunal also upheld the engineer's assessment methodology, finding it reasonable despite being unusual, though it ordered a minor correction to the assessment schedule.

The appeals were dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay a portion of the hearing costs due to his failure to participate in earlier stages of the process.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision of the Director not to cancel a freezing point test result and associated $900 penalty for a milk sample taken in December 1997.

The appellant did not dispute the test results but argued the Director failed to provide earlier warning data that would have allowed him to correct his bulk tank cooling procedures and avoid the penalty.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, finding no error in the testing procedures and noting the appellant was treated in the same manner as other producers penalized for the same offense.

The appellant, a registered chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) finding that it had produced and marketed 7,567 kilograms of chicken without quota, failed to report chicks placed, and failed to pay license fees.

The CFO had imposed a penalty reducing the appellant's future crop quota by five times the amount of the unreported chicken and assessed levies of $933.37.

The Tribunal heard conflicting evidence regarding whether the appellant had shipped illegal chicken to an abattoir.

The Tribunal found the evidence of the abattoir's bookkeeper and the redirected payment cheques to be credible, concluding that the appellant did ship the unreported chicken.

Finding no mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the CFO's findings and the five-fold penalty, dismissing the appeal.